"Adam Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 15:56:18 -0800, finalpatch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 23:29:59 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote: >>> Even with a full port of 2.4 to D it would still fall under the BSD >>> 3-Clause license which is not Boost compliant IIRC. So it will never >>> end up in Phobos. If I am missing something let me know, because a >>> Phobos Software Renderer is a good idea. >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> We don't necessarily have to port AGG to D. Instead, I suggest we >> produce something that resembles its design (a set of very flexible >> components that can be put together through template instantiation at >> compile time), but in idiomatic D. With the power of D, the group >> wisdom of the community, and the lessons learned from AGG and other >> prior projects, it's very possible we can produce something even more >> impressive than AGG. Since it's a pure software renderer, the scope of >> the project will be a lot more manageable than GPU based solutions. > > Well, actually software renderers are terribly complicated beasts and so > probably wouldn't reduce the actual scope. And they require a lot of > mathematical knowledge that can be hard to come by, I certainly don't have > it. So if someone is willing to start writing one in D we'd be happy to > include support for it in Aurora. But I think we should continue with the > GPU based solutions because they are easier to work with and the > knowledge-base is more extensive.
I really dont know why this algorithm is not better known but it's very fast, good quality and very simple to implement. I knocked up my own version in a couple of days (aprox 500 LOC for the rasterizer, and a bunch of asm for the line blitters). It has speed/quality comparisions with GDI+ and AGG on the website. There's C++ source code IIR, dont know about the licence. http://mlab.uiah.fi/~kkallio/antialiasing/
